Delusion In Most Atheists?

I've been an atheist most of my life. And until just recently, I thought the majority of us were very sane, logical and intelligent, as opposed to theists whom are obviously delusional(the belief in the existence of that which cannot be known to exist is denial of reality, which is the textbook definition of delusion). However, I recently lost a boat load of respect for an atheist I used to truly admire. A woman who writes many essays on the evils of the Christian bible. All these years, I had neglected to read her essay on the definition of atheism. She states that "atheists" who claim that atheism is defined as a "lack" of belief in gods or deities are morons, and that true atheism is the affirmative claim that gods indeed do not exist.

How could atheists stoop to the considerably low intellectual level of theists? To claim that gods don't exist is just as delusional as the claim that they do, as that claim too is denial of reality. Humans cannot prove nonexistence. A lack of evidence/proof is not evidence/proof for. That is a very basic principal of debate and indeed reality that I was sure most atheists were intelligent enough to understand, but it seems I was wrong. I'm almost ashamed to be one now.

If this is the definition atheists insist upon taking, then I refuse to call myself one, as I will not be seen as a delusional hypocrite by theists. My goal is to enlighten people, not build a glass house and throw stones.

No no , but i once heard of one.But ButThere is john the atheist , Rebecca , Derek, Lequisha, and Kamal the atheist. Rebecca likes horses and rap music. Derek is all about motorbikes and chicks.Johns a family man 3 kids.Kamal , i don't know much about kamal

The Atheists don't do weekly meet ups at the clubhouse. The atheists don't even group sing. As a qhrase i hate using , It is what it is. And and , what the hell does another person's opinion have to do with you being this or that.

The theists would say now do what ya heart says.

Anyway, a big welcome to TEAM AGNOSTIC nice to have you aboard. Now i no you like a litte play with words , we here at team agnostics have to deal with.

God either exists orrrrrr he doesn't. Its one or the other. NOT BOTH. And you are Agnostics ?

Any luck on your heart telling you what to do yet?

Do what ya wanna do be what ya wanna be yeah. I mean, I'm a attack helicopter.

And Remember this, if you decide to become a theist you will have to pick a group to join as you need one of them holy books to hook ya god you believe in up to.

Maybe non religious group god can better explain this to you. Lets ask him. Hey non religious group ?Non religious group god are you there?No?No he ain't around but I'm sure non religious goup god would say .

i've never seen the difference between not believing in gods and believing there are no gods. Is it possible to do one but not the other?

I've asked this before, and the answer I usually get from other atheists is burden of proof -- if you disbelieve there is no burden of proof on you, but if you believe you must defend and substantiate. Or some such. Personally I've never felt it was a significant difference.

But the thing about the definition in the OP is that it doesn't deal with beliefs, but claims. "True atheism is the affirmative claim that gods indeed do not exist." So this person has basically turned atheism into an assertion of knowledge rather than disbelief. And I say farts to that.

It makes every bit of good sense to believe this exists. It is nonsensical to believe that this God doesn't exist, and really just as nonsensical to be on the fence about it.

The truth of the matter is that most atheists don't really understand what their position means because they don't really understand what God means. An atheist nearly universally has a superstitious conception of God, which is why they can't accept God's existence.

But believing that God exists is simply a matter ofnaccepting God for being God, and this is done with The Spirit of Truth tgat activates it.

The Ultimate Reality, God the Father

The Most Perfect Image of God, The Word of God, God The Son

And

The Spirit of Truth, The Holy Ghost, The Holy Spirit.

And that is one of the purposes of The Trinity.

To believe God, you have to accept it as true that God is what God is.

The Truth.

If your God is anything other than The Truth, it is not God, but a god, and believers of The True God have been refuting gods for thousands of years now.

Atheism towards God is actually the denial of Truth and reality, which is why it is an indefensible position.

There is nothing reasonable about denying God, and it is my hope that you eventually come to see that and feel confident about getting off the fence.

Your name is Brutal Truth. Well, here is your good new... The Truth is God.

I've been an atheist most of my life. And until just recently, I thought the majority of us were very sane, logical and intelligent, as opposed to theists whom are obviously delusional(the belief in the existence of that which cannot be known to exist is denial of reality, which is the textbook definition of delusion).

Since you obviously have chosen what you believe is the intellectual high grounds over others that may hold Theistic views, I'm going to assume you believe you are logical....if that's the case don't you think labeling Theists "delusional" is simply an opinion, one that you may change later? before you go claiming what can be known and what cannot be known and what you believe is a denial of "reality" why don't you debate those problems right here? not that you aren't, but that seems like an illogical, unfair position. Especially in creating your first topic, it's nice to know we have yet another atheist who comes to the table with the preconceived notion Theists are delusional. So if I may ask, what do you expect to get from coming here communicating with a bunch of deluded Theists? in case you were unaware, it's much more intellectually stimulating to discuss something with someone who is willing to leave their drama and preconceived beliefs at the door.

How could atheists stoop to the considerably low intellectual level of theists? To claim that gods don't exist is just as delusional as the claim that they do, as that claim too is denial of reality. Humans cannot prove nonexistence. A lack of evidence/proof is not evidence/proof for. That is a very basic principal of debate and indeed reality that I was sure most atheists were intelligent enough to understand, but it seems I was wrong. I'm almost ashamed to be one now.

Has it ever crossed your mind that some Theists may actually have legit reasons and experiences to believe God exists? since you claim you know nothing either way, why should everyone else be forced into that mold of ignorance? perhaps it is something you have yet to identify with or connect with but that is irrelevant really. Spirituality is the doorway to the knowledge of the Creator, which is the practical application and observations of the God worlds or spiritual reality. Despite what you claim, God is not unknowable and the facts about God are not unknowable. That is where your individual soul comes from, you were meant to know, you were meant to live in it, not be ignorant of it. You might not know it now, but it is your destiny that your soul will progress, in this life or another. But, it is much better to be flexible and open-minded now and never close the door on other options that could be possible.

If this is the definition atheists insist upon taking, then I refuse to call myself one, as I will not be seen as a delusional hypocrite by theists. My goal is to enlighten people, not build a glass house and throw stones.

Not to be rude, but there is nothing within an atheist ideology that is enlightening and I would be surprised if you shared anything I don't already know about atheism and that worldview. As a matter of fact, it is a severely limited mindset and very destructive to true potential, very restricting to your future experiences. If you think not, I'd be glad to tango with ya :)

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your honesty and understand your point but you have to understand it comes across as very disrespectful and condescending.

The truth of the matter is that most atheists don't really understand what their position means because they don't really understand what God means.

And what precisely does " god" mean to the fawning sycophantic theist?

Because according to the bible these gods are flesh and blood beings that could be argued with. Asked questions face to face and reasoned with, asked to reconsider things and change their minds and even physically wrestled to the ground. They eat and drink, just like any other flesh and blood being.

Atheists ostensibly reject superstitious fairy-tales and religious beliefs because they are logically impossible/unknowable and unverifiable and unfalsifiable and categorically outside the scope of scientific exploration.

However, a surprising number self-described atheists believe in other obviously false concepts without question.

Below are just a few examples of faith based beliefs held by many atheists.

1) Free-Will

This is often defended as "an essential prerequisite to human happiness" the exact same way that religious people try say that religion is "an essential prerequisite to human happiness".

You will also hear the very common "we can't possibly know therefore I choose to believe". This is exactly the same as the theist that argues for "god in the gaps".

The fact that Free-Will is logically impossible and unverifiable and unfalsifiable and categorically outside the scope of scientific exploration is dismissed out-of-hand.

2) Objective Reality

This is often defended as "an essential prerequisite to human sanity" the exact same way that religious people try say that religion is "an essential prerequisite to human morality".

The fact that Objective Reality is logically unknowable and unverifiable and unfalsifiable and categorically outside the scope of scientific exploration is dismissed out-of-hand.

3) Infinity

Phrases get tossed around like, "infinite potential" and "infinite possibilities" and "the infinite cosmos". Max Planck has shown that our reality is NOT infinitely divisible, and we can extrapolate logically that human potential may be "unknown" but it is certainly not "unbounded".

The fact that Infinity is logically impossible and unverifiable and unfalsifiable and categorically outside the scope of scientific exploration is dismissed out-of-hand.

Why are you wasting time here when you have an argument to publish in our debate? I could utterly destroy this cute little semantic argument you just made here, but I'm not going to waste my time on it since we have an actual formal debate on this very topic to finish. Get to it.

As for the only claim I haven't refuted yet(your claim that people may have reason to believe): They're free to present that reasoning to me in the form of an argument for the claim that the Christian god exists.

I still hold that atheism is defined as a lack of belief in the existence of gods or deities, and so I still identify as an atheist. However, to answer your question: If the definition of atheism was changed to mean "the affirmative belief that gods or deities do not exist," I would simply be agnostic, as I am already agnostic, however my agnosticism creates my atheism.

To which bible do you refer? Because if you're referring to the Christian bible, you are incorrect, as the Christian bible doesn't actually define the Christian god. It describes it as: spirit, light, love, and a consuming fire, not as a physical being.

Actually I am in a debate. Most of your claims have been refuted by my opening argument there, and so I invite you to follow the debate:

No actually, I'll follow you right here. What claims have been refuted? we can discuss it without a link.

As for the only claim I haven't refuted yet(your claim that people may have reason to believe): They're free to present that reasoning to me in the form of an argument for the claim that the Christian god exists.

Then you need to start by asking questions or creating topics, if you wish to have reasonings. I don't know what you need reasonings for until you present something that you doubt. BTW, I don't argue for any religious God in particular, I argue for the Creator period. I'm an omnist in regards to religious knowledge and that means I examine all forms of spirituality not just one over another. So it depends on what you wish to discuss here, I'm not limited to the Bible and I'm not limited by anything TBH. I didn't make any claim, you did when you claimed Theists are deluded. We need to start with your claims as you have made them so I'll let you begin in any way you would like. If you think holding Theistic beliefs is a delusion you need to explain yourself.

This is a debate site, yet you prefer to debate on the forums? Interesting, though I'm afraid I don't share the same preference. I will clarify myself, but I will not debate you here.

Theists believe in the existence of an entity/entities that has/have yet to be shown to be empirically perceivable. That makes them delusional. Why? Observe an excerpt from my argument in the debate I linked you:

"Why Merely Making Claims Isn't Enough

I think my opponent, and the reader, can agree that we are all human. There are only two forms of knowledge available to humans:

Knowledge a priori

Knowledge a posteriori

What Is Knowledge A Priori And A Posteriori?

Both of these terms refer to the method by which knowledge can be justifiably believed as true. To be justified in believing something is to have an epistemic reason to support it, or, more plainly stated: a reason for thinking it is true.

Knowldge a priori is knowledge that is justifiably believed to be true without the need of empirical experience. An example of knowledge a priori: All bachelors are unmarried. The term "bachelor" is defined as an unmarried male human by the English language. Therefore, a male human can only be classified as a bachelor if he is unmarried. Thus, if a male human is classified as a bachelor, then the male human is unmarried.

Knowledge a posteriori is knowledge that cannot be justifiably believed as true without empirical experience. An example of knowledge a posteriori: It is currently raining outside. One cannot know that it is currently raining outside without either seeing it, hearing it, smelling it, tasting it, or touching it. If one of these empirical senses have not experienced rain in the current time, then knowledge that it is currently raining is not justifiably believed as true.

The Christian God Is Claimed To Be An Entity

Unfortunately, the Christian god, being an actual entity, does not meet the criteria of something that can be known a priori. Entities are things that can only be known a posteriori. In other words: Only through empirical experience. If a human has not seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched this Christian god, then said human cannot justifiably believe that the Christian god exists.

In Conclusion

My conclusion is very simple: The Christian god is an entity, and an entity can only be known through empirical experience. Therefore, unless my opponent wants to prove that they have empirically experienced this Christian god, then they cannot justifiably believe that the Christian god exists, nor can they prove it exists."

Definition of delusion:

an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

As you can see, theism fits the definition of delusion. Now, as I said, I will not be debating this issue with you here. If you wish to debate me, I'll happily challenge you to a formal debate. Otherwise, take my answer or leave it.